Subrata Das Vs State
of Jharkhand & ANR
JUDGMENT
T.S. THAKUR, J.
1.
This
appeal by special leave arises out of an order passed by the High Court of
Jharkhand at Ranchi whereby a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the
appellant has-been dismissed and an order dated 20th March, 2003 passed in
Criminal Revision No.229 of 2002 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad
upheld. The High Court has taken the view that since two Courts below had
concurrently held that a prima facie case under Sections 341, 323 and 506 IP Cand
Sections 3(i)(x) and 2(vii) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 had been made out against the petitioner
(appellant herein) it was not a fit case in which the proceedings before the
Magistrate could be quashed. The controversy arises in the following backdrop:
2.
A
complaint was filed by the complainant-respondentNo.2 herein before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad against the appellant and one Shri D.B. Raman,
Manager of TISCO Jamadoba Colliery, district Dhanbad alleging commission of
offences punishable under Sections 341, 323,506 and 384 IPC and Sections 3(1)
& (2) (vii) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. Statements of the complainant and three other witnesses,
Anil Bhagti, Ram Prasad and Krishna Mandal were recorded by the Court in
support of the complaint. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, however, came to the
conclusion that none of the allegations made against the accused were proved to
be correct to call for action on the basis thereof. The complaint was
accordingly dismissed.
3.
Aggrieved
by the dismissal of his case, the complainant filed a revision before the 5th
Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad who examined the matter at length including
the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that a prima facie case had
indeed been made out by the complainant against the accused. The order passed
by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was accordingly set aside and the matter remanded
back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad for" reviewing the same
afresh" after going into the details of evidence on record and the
relevant provisions of law. Are vision was then filed by the accused including the
appellant herein before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, in which it was,
inter alia, contended that since the Chief Judicial Magistrate had no power to
review his own orders the direction issued by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge,
Dhanbad, was legally erroneous. The High Court, however, clarified that the
directions issued by the 5thAdditional Sessions Judge was a direction for a further
enquiry to be conducted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 398
Cr.P.C.
4.
When
the matter went back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate he recorded the
depositions of the complainant as also the witnesses afresh and came to the
conclusion that prima facie case under the provisions referred to above has
been made out against the accused persons. Summons was accordingly directed to
be issued to the accused persons. Aggrieved whereof the appellant filed a revision
petition before the Additional Sessions Judge which failed and was dismissed,
inter alia, holding that the material on record before the Court below did make
out a prima facieses against the accused persons and that there was no legal
infirmity in the order directing issue of summons to the accused persons. The
appellant preferred a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before the High
Court of Jharkhand,Ranchi which was dismissed by the High Court by the order
impugned in this appeal.
5.
We
have heard learned counsel for the parties, but find no reason to interfere
with the order under challenge. It is fairly well-settled by a long line of
decisions rendered by this Court that the power vested in the High Court under
Section482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked for quashing an on-going investigation,
complaint or other proceedings only in cases where either there is legal power
to the continuance of the proceedings such as the absence of a sanction wherever
required or where averments made in the complaint or first information report
even if accepted on their face value do not constitute an offence or where
there is no legal evidence to support the charge made against the accused. It
is also fairly settled that the powers vested in the High Court under Section
482 Cr.P.C. have to be exercised sparingly and that the Court cannot be called
upon to appreciate the available evidence or material with a view to find out
whether the charge leveled against the accused stands proved.
6.
See
Arun Shanker Shukla v. State of U.P. & Ors.AIR 1999 SC 2554, State of
Punjab v. Kasturi Lal & Ors.2004 Crl.L.J. 3866, State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa
and Anr. (2002) 3 SCC 89 and Central Bureau of Investigation v. K.M. Sharan
2008 (4) SCC471, State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992Suppl.
1 SCC 335 and R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab(1960) 3 SCR 388.
7.
A
plain reading of the complaint filed by the complainant in the instant case
makes out a case against the accused. Not only that the depositions of the
three witnesses examined by the complainant in support of his complaint also support
the allegations made in the complaint. The Magistrate was, therefore,
justified in taking cognizance against the appellant and the co-accused. There
visional Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, was also correct in
holding that a case for issue of process has-been made out. Such being the
position the High Court committed no error in declining to interfere under
Section482 of Cr.P.C. nor is there any reason for us much less a compelling one
to take a view different from the one taken by the High Court.
8.
Learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had
committed an error in recalling the witnesses and examining them afresh after
the matter was remanded back to him for further enquiry. It was contended that
the direction for a further enquiry could not be taken to mean that the
Magistrate had to record afresh the depositions of the witnesses already examined
before him. In as much as the Magistrate had done so in the present case he
committed a mistake that was sufficient to vitiate the order passed by him.
Support was drawn by the learned counsel from a Single Bench's decision of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana in Gurdial Singh v. Kartar Singh and Ors. 1980
Crl. L.J. 955.
9.
The
matter as noticed by us earlier had been remanded back to the Chief Judicial
Magistrate to hold a further enquiry. That direction did not necessarily oblige
the Magistrate to record any further evidence in the case. The nature of the
inquiry was in the discretion of the Magistrate which may or may not have
included recording of further evidence on behalf of the complainant. The
Magistrate could without recording any further evidence in the matter
reappraise the averments made in the complaint and the material already on
record to determine whether a prima facie case was made out against the accused
persons. In as much as the Magistrate in the instant case summoned the
witnesses and examined them afresh, he may have gone beyond what was legally
necessary to do but that is no reason to hold that the recording of evidence by
the Magistrate as a part of the further enquiry directed by the High Court
would vitiate the proceedings before him or the conclusion drawn on the basis
of any such enquiry. So long as the Magistrate was satisfied that a prima facie
case had been made out, he was competent to issue summons to the accused. All
told, the alleged error sought to be pointed out by the appellant is not of a
kind that would persuade us to interfere with the proceedings at this stage. In
the result this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
.................................J.(MARKANDEY
KATJU)
.................................J.
(T.S. THAKUR)
New
Delhi
October
22, 2010
Back